Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Aug 6, 2022; 10(22): 7760-7771
Published online Aug 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i22.7760
Published online Aug 6, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i22.7760
Table 5 Performance of metagenomic next-generation sequencing and the conventional methods in the diagnosis of central nervous system fungal infections
Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | |
Conventional methods | 44.4% (26.0%, 64.4%) | 83.3% (36.5%, 99.1%) | 51.5% (33.9%, 68.8%) | 92.3% (62.1%, 99.6%) | 25.0% (9.6%, 49.4%) |
mNGS | 63.0% (42.5%, 79.9%) | 100.0% (51.7%, 100.0%) | 69.7% (51.1%, 83.8%) | 100.0% (77.1%, 100.0%) | 37.5% (16.3%, 64.1%) |
P value | 0.172 | 1.000 | 0.131 | 0.433 | 0.656 |
- Citation: Chen YY, Guo Y, Xue XH, Pang F. Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of infectious diseases of the central nervous system after empirical treatment. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(22): 7760-7771
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i22/7760.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i22.7760